My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for these amendments. While the Government understand the intention behind these amendments, we have not been convinced that they are necessary. Existing codes and the establishment of the independent public advocate deliver on many of these amendments’ aims. It may be helpful if I outline the Government’s rationale.
First, we have concerns over the application of this new code. As proposed, the code would apply only to those individuals who are considered victims of major incidents under the definition in this Bill. However, as this Bill is not retrospective, there are currently no victims under this definition. It would be premature to create such a code under the circumstances and we may lack the evidential basis for it at this time.
Secondly, the key aims of the proposed code directly align with the purpose of the independent public advocate, and it is therefore unnecessary. The IPA will help to ensure that victims understand the subsequent investigatory processes. They will help to signpost victims to appropriate support services and play a pivotal role in ensuring that the victims are able to challenge decisions and raise concerns, as part of their role will be to act as a conduit to government, to ensure that the victims are heard in order to effect change in real time.
Thirdly, as we noted in Committee, it is very likely that in many circumstances where a major incident is declared and an advocate is appointed, the victims will be victims of crime or criminal conduct. In these instances, they are already covered under the victims’ code, which sets out the services and support that victims of crime can expect to receive from criminal justice agencies. An additional code for victims of a major incident may therefore be duplicative and as such counterproductive.
5.45 pm
As noble Lords highlighted in Committee, there will be incidents to which the existing victims’ code does not apply. However, the Government believe that this subsection of victims will be covered by the introduction of the Hillsborough charter. This charter commits its signatories to place the public interest first and to approach all forms of public scrutiny, including public inquests and inquiries, with candour and in an open, honest and transparent way, making full disclosure of relevant documents, material and facts. Additionally, the charter ensures that its signatories are accountable and open to challenge.
In answer to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, the Bill sends a clear signal about what victims can and should expect by placing the overarching principles of the victims’ code into law. It includes a statutory duty on criminal justice bodies to promote awareness of the victims’ code. We are also placing a statutory duty on relevant agencies to provide services in accordance with the victims’ code unless there is a good reason not to. The Government expect that the standing advocate will hold others to account, based on the principles of the Hillsborough charter. This will give victims confidence in their ability to challenge those in authority, should they wish to. The charter and the proposed code for
victims of major incidents bear many similarities. The Government therefore remain unconvinced of the merits of this proposal and the necessity of establishing a new code.
I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment 114 and not to move Amendments 115 to 117.